Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The Florida Paraplegic Assoc. v. Uccello Immobilie
Fla. Paraplegic Assoc. v. Uccello Immobilie, 227 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2000-09-22
- Topic
- general
RONEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court’s decision. To we who are fully able, it may seem that a disabled person suffers minimal damage when a building does not conform to the legal requirements, but for the person whom those regulations seek to protect, the harm may be far more than minimal. Obviously this is virtually impossible to quantify in economic terms. That is the exact reason that the law provides for liquidated damages.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Florida Paraplegic Assoc. v. Uccello Immobilie. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court’s decision.
To we who are fully able, it may seem that a disabled person suffers minimal damage when a building does not conform to the legal requirements, but for the person whom those regulations seek to protect, the harm may be far more than minimal. Obviously this is virtually impossible to quantify in economic terms. That is the exact reason that the law provides for liquidated damages. Otherwise there is no way to enforce compliance.
The appellant made an agreement. There is no just reason why it should not pay damages for failure to fulfill the terms of that agreement. Certainly, if the requirement was in the form of a mandatory injunction rather than a settlement agreement, the assessment of the minimal amount here for violation of that injunction would not be questioned by this Court. Although this is an individual case, not a class action, the settlement agreement was intended to benefit others than the plaintiff and it seems to me the district court’s decision should be reviewed with that in mind.